United States v. Tim Collins
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12801
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Collins pled guilty to one count of possessing child pornography shipped in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- He was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment followed by a lifetime term of supervised release with special conditions, including residency restrictions tied to California law.
- The district court mischaracterized the charges at the August 18, 2009 change-of-plea, referencing the original indictment rather than the First Superseding Indictment.
- The court later corrected the record at an August 31, 2009 hearing to reflect Collins’s plea to Count One of the First Superseding Indictment, with parties agreeing to proceed after clarification.
- Collins challenged Rule 11 compliance, grand jury instructions from the October 2008 grand jury, and the lifetime supervised-release conditions (notably Condition 15 residency restrictions).
- The district court’s imposition of Condition 15 relied on state law (Cal. Penal Code § 3003.5) and was not adequately justified under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); the residency restriction was vacated and remanded for proper analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 plea adequacy and plain error | Collins argues the August 18 plea violated Rule 11 and subsequent proceedings compounded the error. | The government maintains any errors were corrected and not prejudicial. | No reversible plain error; plea valid after correction. |
| Timeliness of grand jury instruction challenge | Collins challenges October 2008 grand jury instructions as unconstitutional. | The challenge was waived under Rule 12(b)(3) for pretrial objections. | Waived; challenges not considered on appeal. |
| Lifetime supervised release with Condition 15 residency restriction | Condition 15 overly restricts residence and travel and violates due process and liberty interests. | Restriction is justified to protect the public and is consistent with related state law. | Residency restriction vacated and remanded for proper § 3553(a) analysis; substantive reasonableness to be reconsidered. |
| Adequacy of Rule 11 explanation for the charged nature of plea | Deficient explanation of the charges at the August 31, 2009 hearing. | The colloquy was ongoing and explained sufficiently; any deficiency harmless. | Harmless error; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error review for Rule 11)
- United States v. Bowory, 595 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 violations)
- United States v. Monzon, 429 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2005) (prejudice required to overturn guilty plea)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (structural errors and harmless-error framework)
- United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006) (structural-plain error framework for Rule 11)
- United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2005) (grand jury independence and related instructions (en banc discussion))
- United States v. Caruto, 663 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2011) (grand jury independence and Rule 12(b) waiver)
- United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness and explanation of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness of conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Apodaca, 641 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (empirical concerns about lifetime supervised release)